What makes you a photographer?

[DNG]

When I am out making photographs, or at home working on photographs, or when I am thinking about what photographic project I want to work on next, or when I am chatting in the many photography forums I engage in, or reading photography blogs about inspiring projects they blogged about.

 

[icebear]

they would be monkeytogs...

😀😀😀😀 ROFL ... one of the best ever !

 

[farlymac]

Well, photographer really is a technical term/title. Such as, when a photo is being critiqued, someone will state what they think "the photographer" was thinking or doing at the moment. In that instance, photographer can be considered a temporary title.

However, to call oneself "a photographer", infers that the person considers photography as their main focus in work/life (no pun intended), whether they do it professionally, or as an amateur (another technical term, refering to someone who does something for no monetary gain, or on a temporary basis, or is in training).

Still, anyone who points a camera at a scene, and records same on whatever medium they are using, is "the photographer" of record. Whether they are "a photographer" remains open to interpretation. Just ask the good folks in Spain whether they consider the elderly lady who was only helping out, "an art restorer".

PF

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Anyone that does photography is a photographer. The word is a description of what someone does, not the quality of their work.

 

[it'sawhat?]

hey monkeytogs are photographers too😛. Seriously as far as I'm concered if you can operate a camera and do you are a photographer. However this begs the question of are you any good at it. i'm willing to admit to being fairly bad by most standards but I'm doing it for my own amusement and pleasure.😀

 

[farlymac]

Mods.

Troll Alert.

I'm starting to wonder what you have against I Love Film?

PF

 

[Richard G]

I can't give the exact quote, especially since this is English language, but Manuel Alvarez Bravo stated that he was a photographer for years before he ever held a camera. I think that is a nice insight into what distinguishes a photographer from an operator of a camera.

 

[Keith]

[Every monkey with a DSLR think he's a photographer]

............. :bang:

 

[radical7]

Monkeytogs should be copyrighted. Ok ok ok, I'll upload some rff gallery stuff so you don't think all I do all day long is ask question. What is life?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Everything depends on the context of the question. If people ask you "what you do", by convention, you reply with your full-time or principal job. Thus I could at various times have replied "student" or "schoolteacher" or "accountant" (not for long, that one) or "photographer" or "writer" or "journalist" or various combinations thereof.

But some people don't want to admit to doing something boring, so they give a hobby as "what they are" instead. And others don't always understand the convention either:

"I'm a writer."

"Oh. Have you had anything published?"

But equally, I might say of my friend Marie, when she ran a café, "She's a very fine photographer." Now, she's a very fine photographer who earns a good part of her living from it (though she is also, now, a part of the wicked rentier class and rents out the café).

Cheers,

R.

 

[lynnb]

10,000 hours? I guess that would define "serious" photographer..

Or alternatively, just a way of seeing? That would accommodate Richard's anecdote about Bravo.

 

[jsrockit]

One who makes photographs... but IMO, one who takes it semi-serious too.

 

[Roger Hicks]

10,000 hours? I guess that would define "serious" photographer....

Not for me. For me, it would define "someone who swallowed the ridiculous 10,000 hours drivel in Outliers" This is a way of persuading people with no talent that they are not necessarily quite as useless as they thought they were. In my book, it's getting things exactly backwards. If you're good, and want to get better, you'll just go on doing things, regardless of any arbitrary number of hours. It's an attempt to quantify the unquantifiable: a speciality of economics in general, and of pop economics (Gladwell's speciality) in particular. It's also the kind of nonsense you'd expect in a self-help book.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sevo]

But some people don't want to admit to doing something boring, so they give a hobby as "what they are" instead

It is a bit more difficult than that, as a considerable proportion of artists do have/do need a day job (even when their formal education and academic grades are in the field of arts) - going by the incomes registered with the KSV (German artists social insurance) the vast majority are in the powerty range, with an income between the minimum 4,000 and 12,000€ a year.

Arguably this is a bit less so in photography - if any, photography is a day job complement for many artists. But all writers I know have some other primary source of income (often not that far off their books, in teaching or journalism), and musicians and actors don't fare much better.

 

[Sparrow]

... a really fancy camera ... this is confirmed when people say "that's a nice photo, you must have a really good camera"

 

[Sparrow]

... and do monkeytogs chimp?

 

[Roger Hicks]

It is a bit more difficult than that, as a considerable proportion of artists do have/do need a day job (even when their formal education and academic grades are in the field of arts) - going by the incomes registered with the KSV (German artists social insurance) the vast majority are in the powerty range, with an income between the minimum 4,000 and 12,000€ a year.

Arguably this is a bit less so in photography - if any, photography is a day job complement for many artists. But all writers I know have some other primary source of income (often not that far off their books, in teaching or journalism), and musicians and actors don't fare much better.

Sure, I wouldn't argue with that. But if someone defines himself as 'a writer' without ever having had anything published, it strikes me as a bit odd. By all means "A writer and journalist" or "A photographer, and I teach a bit of photography," but defining oneself by sheer ambition, basically "I'd really like to be a photographer and I've got lots of equipment," or "I belong to a local writers' circle," is another matter.

Also, of course, the overlap between writing and journalism is enormous: I earned a living from writing (non-fiction) books before I ever did much journalism.

Cheers,

R.

 

[lynnb]

originally posted by Roger Hicks
If you're good, and want to get better, you'll just go on doing things, regardless of any arbitrary number of hours.

Roger, we are in agreement. If you are serious, you aren't necessarily good. And if you're good, you aren't necessarily serious!
Cheers,

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, we are in agreement. If you are serious, you aren't necessarily good. And if you're good, you aren't necessarily serious!
Cheers,

Dear Lynn,

Both all too true!

Cheers,

R.

 

[jonasv]

Someone who has photographed on a regular basis for at least five years. Knows all the basic technical stuff such as exposure, ISO, focusing etc. knows post-processing with darkroom/photoshop or similar software and has put together at least one book or a series of photos with a singular theme - or has a portfolio of images with a consistent subject matter, style or aesthetic.


Good or bad is not the issue, the issue is commitment to photography and the physical and mental effort to improve.

That would be funny... cause a lot of really famous photobooks would not have been made by photographers!